|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2019 14:35:17 GMT -5
Real individuality and identification are mutually exclusive, so you have misunderstood me. So we are in somewhat more agreement than you expressed. {The absence of self-referential thinking is not necessarily the absence of identification (we use the term non-identification), see note* at end}. Identification is our usual state (defined in the original post). Identification is to be identified with the false sense of self (identified with the functions, thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions/muscle memory, see below). This is an ongoing practical/functional matter ( not a once and for all realization). "Real individuality" is not our usual state, it is that which we are aiming for. To be present-to, and to be absorbed-in, are mutually exclusive. To be present-to would be non-identification (or absence of identification). To be absorbed-in would be to be identified. The last question: Our ordinary sense of self is a state of identification, this where the false sense of self is functionally *operational* ( see above). This is a state of automaticity, or operation on autopilot. But yes, it arises from the subconscious, it is a network of automatic reactions, virtually the definition of the subconscious. Now, some of these are personal, (we generally unconsciously try to recreate the environment we were raised in); some are not personal, (knowing how to read and write, riding a bicycle, etc.). But the eventual goal is to become free from these (psychological) automatic reactions, to make the subconscious, conscious.I think I've gone too far in trying to clarify, but reread the original post in light of these comments. Hopefully I have clarified, not complicated. Additionally, ( *note at end) flow and mushin are not necessarily merely different vocabulary for "absence of identification" (non-identification) or Self-Awareness. One can learn a skill or a craft (coding for example), and be-in-flow, or mushin, while performing/doing that skill or craft, and still be identified (practically speaking). One can be in the midst of a skilled activity which has been ingrained into muscle memory, and in a state of flow or mushin, yet still be functionally identified, from my POV. Again, the aim and eventual fulfillment of that aim is to have individuality is a Real sense, something that not-now-is. To- have one's own I. The self-realization that you termed the way of the ostrich is a sudden re-orientation of perspective, that cannot be worked toward gradually by a relative process of revealing the subconscious to the forefront of your conscious focus. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you think you've learned from internal practice might be entrenching you into a position of refusal? Metaphorically, it would be declining to get an operation to enable the sense of hearing in someone born deaf. Think about it: if a deaf person were convinced there was no such thing as sound, then they wouldn't see a need for the operation, right? OK...(acknowledging post read)...answer me this, post realization, is the subconscious operational? IOW, do realizations "disengage" the "gears" of the subconscious?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 14:44:50 GMT -5
The self-realization that you termed the way of the ostrich is a sudden re-orientation of perspective, that cannot be worked toward gradually by a relative process of revealing the subconscious to the forefront of your conscious focus. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you think you've learned from internal practice might be entrenching you into a position of refusal? Metaphorically, it would be declining to get an operation to enable the sense of hearing in someone born deaf. Think about it: if a deaf person were convinced there was no such thing as sound, then they wouldn't see a need for the operation, right? OK...(acknowledging post read)...answer me this, post realization, is the subconscious operational? IOW, do realizations "disengage" the "gears" of the subconscious? Realization reveals that the subconscious is sort of a seamless flow between what you might think of as "the totality" and "the individual" - but please don't take those ideas literally. The subconscious is very much like the physical senses, but not bound by physical restrictions, nor, conversely, as predictable. And yes, it's "still there" after SR, but SR blunts the potential for the blind contradictions that were operative beforehand. Personally, I've found that the meditative practice of watching thought can be used to illuminate the subconscious, in relative terms, and that the distortion of the trance would likely interfere with that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2019 15:07:15 GMT -5
OK...(acknowledging post read)...answer me this, post realization, is the subconscious operational? IOW, do realizations "disengage" the "gears" of the subconscious? Realization reveals that the subconscious is sort of a seamless flow between what you might think of as "the totality" and "the individual" - but please don't take those ideas literally. The subconscious is very much like the physical senses, but not bound by physical restrictions, nor, conversely, as predictable. And yes, it's "still there" after SR, but SR blunts the potential for the blind contradictions that were operative beforehand. Personally, I've found that the meditative practice of watching thought can be used to illuminate the subconscious, in relative terms, and that the distortion of the trance would likely interfere with that. Yes, precisely. There is basically a choice, do ~I~ want to be the distortion of the trance (ego), or do I (in a manner of speaking) wish to be that which watches?(which is the meaning of internal practice). {I should really stop there}. A still-active subconscious pulls us to continue to-be entranced, functionally entranced (that is, to act-as-if *we* are still functioning through the default position, I-as-ego. The operative word, acting, ~what~ is acting-in-the-world? That is, what is functionally operational? That is, why does the default-position-ego still act? (Why do we still {functionally} keep carrying the canteen to the mirage?)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2019 16:18:05 GMT -5
Realization reveals that the subconscious is sort of a seamless flow between what you might think of as "the totality" and "the individual" - but please don't take those ideas literally. The subconscious is very much like the physical senses, but not bound by physical restrictions, nor, conversely, as predictable. And yes, it's "still there" after SR, but SR blunts the potential for the blind contradictions that were operative beforehand. Personally, I've found that the meditative practice of watching thought can be used to illuminate the subconscious, in relative terms, and that the distortion of the trance would likely interfere with that. Yes, precisely. There is basically a choice, do ~I~ want to be the distortion of the trance (ego), or do I (in a manner of speaking) wish to be that which watches?(which is the meaning of internal practice). {I should really stop there}. A still-active subconscious pulls us to continue to-be entranced, functionally entranced (that is, to act-as-if *we* are still functioning through the default position, I-as-ego. The operative word, acting, ~what~ is acting-in-the-world? That is, what is functionally operational? That is, why does the default-position-ego still act? (Why do we still {functionally} keep carrying the canteen to the mirage?) ok, I apologize in advance for how condescending this is. There's no need for me to unpack the various mind-hooks in that why question, you know, it's perfect, just as it is. But it doesn't have a conventional answer, which isn't to say, that it has no answer. SR is a permanent, sudden cessation of that distortion, but no, it's not a matter of choice. Practice, as we've discussed it, can be described in terms of the appearance of choices and intent, but the potential informing of mind, post-SR, reveals something else about it. The revelation can seem to contradict the appearance, but only before, never after, the realization.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 11, 2019 15:19:22 GMT -5
Yes, precisely. There is basically a choice, do ~I~ want to be the distortion of the trance (ego), or do I (in a manner of speaking) wish to be that which watches?(which is the meaning of internal practice). {I should really stop there}. A still-active subconscious pulls us to continue to-be entranced, functionally entranced (that is, to act-as-if *we* are still functioning through the default position, I-as-ego. The operative word, acting, ~what~ is acting-in-the-world? That is, what is functionally operational? That is, why does the default-position-ego still act? (Why do we still {functionally} keep carrying the canteen to the mirage?) ok, I apologize in advance for how condescending this is. There's no need for me to unpack the various mind-hooks in that why question, you know, it's perfect, just as it is. But it doesn't have a conventional answer, which isn't to say, that it has no answer. SR is a permanent, sudden cessation of that distortion, but no, it's not a matter of choice. Practice, as we've discussed it, can be described in terms of the appearance of choices and intent, but the potential informing of mind, post-SR, reveals something else about it. The revelation can seem to contradict the appearance, but only before, never after, the realization. I don't ~speak~ SR, it has nothing to do with my path. That's why I keep talking about the functionality of the false sense of self. If it's functioning (if any distortions still exist), it is (AFAIAC).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 13, 2019 10:49:13 GMT -5
OK...(acknowledging post read)...answer me this, post realization, is the subconscious operational? IOW, do realizations "disengage" the "gears" of the subconscious? Realization reveals that the subconscious is sort of a seamless flow between what you might think of as "the totality" and "the individual" - but please don't take those ideas literally. The subconscious is very much like the physical senses, but not bound by physical restrictions, nor, conversely, as predictable. And yes, it's "still there" after SR, but SR blunts the potential for the blind contradictions that were operative beforehand. Personally, I've found that the meditative practice of watching thought can be used to illuminate the subconscious, in relative terms, and that the distortion of the trance would likely interfere with that. Only in watching is one awake.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2019 11:43:52 GMT -5
Realization reveals that the subconscious is sort of a seamless flow between what you might think of as "the totality" and "the individual" - but please don't take those ideas literally. The subconscious is very much like the physical senses, but not bound by physical restrictions, nor, conversely, as predictable. And yes, it's "still there" after SR, but SR blunts the potential for the blind contradictions that were operative beforehand. Personally, I've found that the meditative practice of watching thought can be used to illuminate the subconscious, in relative terms, and that the distortion of the trance would likely interfere with that. Only in watching is one awake. I understand how it seems that way to you, and I appreciate the distinction between being present and not. But, I prefer a very different meaning for this word, "awake".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 13, 2019 13:01:50 GMT -5
Only in watching is one awake. I understand how it seems that way to you, and I appreciate the distinction between being present and not. But, I prefer a very different meaning for this word, "awake". Yes, I know.
|
|